No, I'm just saying it's like that for that particular matchup. In that matchup, then there's a certain way for you to fight in order to beat them more easily. I'm not talking about 'bad players' and 'good players' in this; I'm talking style.

A bad player will always be a bad player, no matter which HAR he/she uses. A good player will be a good player in any HAR.

But a good player in an overpowered HAR will be better than a good player in an underpowered HAR, and a bad HAR matchup will give one player an advantage; it doesn't mean that the one with the advantage will win, it's just not playing on exactly equal footing. 'Playstyle' comes into play with specific matchups.

EDIT: Warlord isn't even in the top tier; I'd call Warlord balanced. Don't listen to Ouch.

Force has a "semi" good match up against mantis (maybe not a good one, but still better than the average match up against mantis.

And in mass ffa demolition, say anything you want, warlord just owns it, he just gets too much points for doing nothing much._________________
All errors in spelling and grammer are entirely by design in order to enrage those who have nothing left to add to the discussion and therefore seek superiority through personal attacks.

I know this post hasn't been touched in a while, but I thought I might use it to make a point: Anyone notice that really no players can agree which robots in this game are the best? Do you think, perhaps, that this disagreement stems from individual playing style, personal preference, and level of experience with any particular robot?

If anything, the fact that these massive, unending, vilolently argumentitive threads exist seems to point out to me that the designers must have actually *gasp* done a good job at creating a certain level of balance in the game. From what I have read, I am no more convinced that one single robot can defeat any other at all times than that hot-dogs contain any actual organic compund derived from living animals. The fact of the matter is this; you like a robot, you use a robot, eventually you get good with a robot, and can beat other players using this robot. You may tinker with other bots, but those who focus for extended periods of time with any robot seem to get pretty good with them and are capable of beating others with the same. It has to do with skill and smooth execution; not simply lines of code.

If you choose to argue with this post by pointing out more weaknesses or strengths in a variety of robots, you will only prove my point further.

I hate to break it to you, but all players who know what they're doing agree, more or less, to very similar tier structures. Given that, some HARs are absolutely silly to have debate over: Mantis, for one. Every once in a while someone with like two days playing experience resurrects this thread because they don't know anything beyond special moves.

You're not the first to argue "it's not tiers, it's skill!" and certainly won't be the last. If only this were true. While you do get better with some bots than others, just listen to the sheer number of people saying "I only play Pyros, but I know that Mantis is better than it is."

Just because people disagree doesn't mean that the truth isn't easy to find. It's universally agreed by anybody who's seen better levels of competition that Mantis and Garg are at the top, and Katana is at the bottom. The disagreements are in the other five slots, and it's generally recognized that Warlord is in the top end of the middle while Jag and Chronos are towards the bottom end. That leaves what, Pyros and Force to argue with? And that's because neither of those two are actually good enough to hang with Mantis and Garg, so their rankings are largely theoretical anyway.

Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is probably the most unbalanced fighting game that's still played. There are loads of lively disagreements about the tiers beyond the top 10, and people love to see unorthodox teams using "worse" characters that still win. This doesn't change the fact that the top 4 are flat-out better than the rest of the cast: all their moves are faster, safer, more powerful, easier to link to, and have more synergy with teammates than equivalent characters lower down. It doesn't mean the game is bad, merely that the competitive environment is much smaller than the casual environment.

I hate to break it to you, but all players who know what they're doing agree, more or less, to very similar tier structures. Given that, some HARs are absolutely silly to have debate over: Mantis, for one. Every once in a while someone with like two days playing experience resurrects this thread because they don't know anything beyond special moves.

You're not the first to argue "it's not tiers, it's skill!" and certainly won't be the last. If only this were true. While you do get better with some bots than others, just listen to the sheer number of people saying "I only play Pyros, but I know that Mantis is better than it is."

Just because people disagree doesn't mean that the truth isn't easy to find. It's universally agreed by anybody who's seen better levels of competition that Mantis and Garg are at the top, and Katana is at the bottom. The disagreements are in the other five slots, and it's generally recognized that Warlord is in the top end of the middle while Jag and Chronos are towards the bottom end. That leaves what, Pyros and Force to argue with? And that's because neither of those two are actually good enough to hang with Mantis and Garg, so their rankings are largely theoretical anyway.

Marvel vs. Capcom 2 is probably the most unbalanced fighting game that's still played. There are loads of lively disagreements about the tiers beyond the top 10, and people love to see unorthodox teams using "worse" characters that still win. This doesn't change the fact that the top 4 are flat-out better than the rest of the cast: all their moves are faster, safer, more powerful, easier to link to, and have more synergy with teammates than equivalent characters lower down. It doesn't mean the game is bad, merely that the competitive environment is much smaller than the casual environment.

Exactly. Nobody's saying that there isn't room for skill; the outcome of the match isn't predetermined based on HAR and pilot choice. That is not to say it isn't influenced by them, however.

Pfft, pages upon pages upon pages ago, we all pretty much settled on a tier list that I can't quite remember. The only exceptions were Ouch and Mordax (Mantis players), who carried on this argument for many more pages.

I suppose it does afford a certain level of entertainment at any rate. I doubt we have seen the last of these debates (and do please understand that I am not trying to start one myself).

It really is unfortunate that there is so little activity with this game now; as far as the many fighters I have played, this particular game has a system that I feel does exceptionally well at balancing various strengths and weaknesses in each of the fighters (my original point) and does much to allow individual style and adaptation.

It really is unfortunate that there is so little activity with this game now; as far as the many fighters I have played, this particular game has a system that I feel does exceptionally well at balancing various strengths and weaknesses in each of the fighters (my original point) and does much to allow individual style and adaptation.

ehhh i dont think think so personally. it was at first, but when you find the ultimate strategy for each har, it doesnt matter anymore._________________Xaronth's System SpecsProud tester since build 1700, beta tester since build 1900"Better dead than smeg." -Arnold Rimmer, Red Dwarf"A thin line separates us. I call it 'talent'". -Ken Masters